On August 22, 2013, ACLU-Indiana filed suit (PDF) on behalf of Planned Parenthood Indiana challenging SB 371. SB 371 changed the definition of “abortion clinic” to include a facility where RU-486 is dispensed. Making that change, means that the facility has to include physical requirements imposed on facilities where surgical procedures are performed even if no surgical procedures are performed at the particular clinic.
As a practical matter, this legislation is directed at the Lafayette Planned Parenthood which provides access to RU-486 but doesn’t provide surgical abortions. Because of the legislation, it has to have – by January 1, 2014 – a procedure room that is at least 120 square feet, scrub facilities, and recovery rooms; among other requirements. The complaint alleges that the Lafayette Planned Parenthood currently consists of rented space with a waiting room and receptionist area, four examination rooms, a patient and employee restroom, four small offices, storage areas, and a staff break room.
Because the facility does not provide surgical services, the complaint argues that these new requirements impose a substantial burden with no rational basis. The complaint argues that Commissioner of Health is allowed to grant waivers of regulatory requirements for good cause shown doing so will not adversely affect health, safety, and welfare of the patient; except that the Commissioner is not permitted to grant waivers in the case of abortion clinics (including, now, clinics that dispense RU-486).The complaint argues that, because the burdens imposed on the Lafayette clinic that are relevant only to clinics that perform surgical abortions, it is a violation of the substantive due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment and, further argues, that because it imposes burdens on the Lafayette clinic that aren’t applied to physicians offices and because the Department of Health can grant waivers for other procedures but not abortions, it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The State has several weeks before it has to file its response.
Question – Pharmacies dispense drugs without all the required facilities that Planned Parenthood must have. If somebody immediately happened to take a medication they were allergic to, and passed out on the floor at, say a CVS, couldn’t they be sued for not having staff and equipment in the facility to deal with the reaction?
There is a big difference, Steve. You’re talking about the POSSIBILITY of an allergic reaction. The RU-486 pill on the other hand always causes a chemical abortion and the resulting aborted fetus still has to be discharged from the woman’s body. That’s where some of the dangers from taking RU-486 comes from and why it has to be taken under the care of a physician with close medical monitoring to ensure there are no complications. A lot of people confuse the RU-486 pill with the morning after pill, but they are completely different.
An overweening concern for a woman’s health was not the cause of this legislation. In any event, the medication taken to cause the discharge is taken after the woman leaves the clinic. So, it’s still irrational to require surgical facilities on-site. If the woman has an unexpected problem, she can go to one of Lafayette’s fine urgent care facilities or emergency rooms.
(I have to preface this by stating I don’t like abortion, but accept that in a pluralistic society the termination of the life of a human prior to viability is probably none of my business.)
In that light, it’s about time the ACLU got off its ass about this, and to support that viewpoint I harken back to the state and federal constitutions:
1) The state constitution says all laws must be as uniform as possible. With that in mind, any drug that can have a similar health impact (or potential for patient death) as RU486 would have to fall under the law requiring the added burdens.
2) The federal constitution precludes states from impinging on the privileges and immunities of citizens. IMO this means states can’t just make some actions illegal cause they feel like it. Women have a right to an abortion as a matter of settled law. Putting them thru hoops impinges that right.
The left never stops trying to make life difficult for gun owners. The religious right never stops trying to shut down abortion. It’s a never-ending game of Pong that leaves society less free.
It’s far easier to get a gun than an abortion.
But, that critique aside, your ability to step back from a personal preference on abortion and consider the broader question of proper application of a system of laws is laudable.
Given that between 10% and 20% of pregnancies result in miscarriage, I think the state needs to mandate that all fertile females stay within walking distance of a procedure room. Specifically, a 120 square foot one. That size is particularly therapeutic.